Pathway Summary

Consort map

Demographic information

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 1501

control, N = 761

treatment, N = 741

p-value2

age

148

50.75 ± 12.59 (25 - 74)

51.04 ± 12.43 (25 - 74)

50.46 ± 12.83 (28 - 73)

0.779

Unknown

2

2

0

gender

150

0.918

f

115 (77%)

58 (76%)

57 (77%)

m

35 (23%)

18 (24%)

17 (23%)

occupation

150

0.802

day_training

2 (1.3%)

2 (2.6%)

0 (0%)

full_time

19 (13%)

10 (13%)

9 (12%)

homemaker

13 (8.7%)

6 (7.9%)

7 (9.5%)

other

2 (1.3%)

0 (0%)

2 (2.7%)

part_time

27 (18%)

13 (17%)

14 (19%)

retired

40 (27%)

20 (26%)

20 (27%)

self_employ

7 (4.7%)

4 (5.3%)

3 (4.1%)

student

2 (1.3%)

0 (0%)

2 (2.7%)

t_and_e

2 (1.3%)

1 (1.3%)

1 (1.4%)

unemploy

36 (24%)

20 (26%)

16 (22%)

marital

150

0.903

cohabitation

1 (0.7%)

0 (0%)

1 (1.4%)

divore

16 (11%)

10 (13%)

6 (8.1%)

in_relationship

4 (2.7%)

2 (2.6%)

2 (2.7%)

married

42 (28%)

22 (29%)

20 (27%)

none

75 (50%)

36 (47%)

39 (53%)

seperation

3 (2.0%)

2 (2.6%)

1 (1.4%)

widow

9 (6.0%)

4 (5.3%)

5 (6.8%)

edu

150

0.134

bachelor

36 (24%)

13 (17%)

23 (31%)

diploma

29 (19%)

20 (26%)

9 (12%)

hd_ad

4 (2.7%)

3 (3.9%)

1 (1.4%)

postgraduate

13 (8.7%)

6 (7.9%)

7 (9.5%)

primary

9 (6.0%)

3 (3.9%)

6 (8.1%)

secondary_1_3

17 (11%)

10 (13%)

7 (9.5%)

secondary_4_5

35 (23%)

19 (25%)

16 (22%)

secondary_6_7

7 (4.7%)

2 (2.6%)

5 (6.8%)

fam_income

150

0.945

10001_12000

6 (4.0%)

2 (2.6%)

4 (5.4%)

12001_14000

8 (5.3%)

4 (5.3%)

4 (5.4%)

14001_16000

8 (5.3%)

3 (3.9%)

5 (6.8%)

16001_18000

4 (2.7%)

2 (2.6%)

2 (2.7%)

18001_20000

7 (4.7%)

5 (6.6%)

2 (2.7%)

20001_above

28 (19%)

16 (21%)

12 (16%)

2001_4000

21 (14%)

12 (16%)

9 (12%)

4001_6000

15 (10%)

6 (7.9%)

9 (12%)

6001_8000

13 (8.7%)

7 (9.2%)

6 (8.1%)

8001_10000

11 (7.3%)

5 (6.6%)

6 (8.1%)

below_2000

29 (19%)

14 (18%)

15 (20%)

medication

150

132 (88%)

67 (88%)

65 (88%)

0.952

onset_duration

147

15.31 ± 10.57 (0 - 56)

15.79 ± 11.44 (0 - 56)

14.81 ± 9.62 (0 - 35)

0.576

Unknown

3

0

3

onset_age

145

35.64 ± 13.87 (10 - 65)

35.10 ± 12.56 (10 - 61)

36.21 ± 15.18 (14 - 65)

0.632

Unknown

5

2

3

1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%)

2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test

Measurement

Table

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 1501

control, N = 761

treatment, N = 741

p-value2

recovery_stage_a

150

3.15 ± 1.16 (1 - 5)

3.21 ± 1.21 (1 - 5)

3.09 ± 1.10 (1 - 5)

0.541

recovery_stage_b

150

17.88 ± 2.77 (8 - 24)

17.84 ± 2.88 (8 - 24)

17.92 ± 2.67 (13 - 24)

0.866

ras_confidence

150

29.85 ± 5.06 (15 - 45)

29.68 ± 4.79 (15 - 40)

30.01 ± 5.35 (18 - 45)

0.692

ras_willingness

150

11.78 ± 2.03 (5 - 15)

11.67 ± 2.00 (5 - 15)

11.89 ± 2.06 (7 - 15)

0.506

ras_goal

150

17.35 ± 3.04 (11 - 25)

17.16 ± 2.82 (11 - 24)

17.54 ± 3.26 (11 - 25)

0.443

ras_reliance

150

13.15 ± 2.89 (5 - 20)

13.00 ± 2.74 (5 - 18)

13.31 ± 3.05 (7 - 20)

0.512

ras_domination

150

9.83 ± 2.39 (3 - 15)

10.09 ± 2.30 (3 - 15)

9.57 ± 2.47 (3 - 15)

0.180

symptom

150

29.99 ± 9.12 (14 - 56)

29.83 ± 9.38 (14 - 55)

30.15 ± 8.91 (15 - 56)

0.831

slof_work

150

22.43 ± 4.81 (10 - 30)

22.82 ± 4.34 (13 - 30)

22.03 ± 5.24 (10 - 30)

0.316

slof_relationship

150

25.08 ± 5.95 (9 - 35)

24.71 ± 5.97 (9 - 35)

25.46 ± 5.94 (11 - 35)

0.443

satisfaction

150

20.34 ± 7.14 (5 - 35)

19.57 ± 6.78 (5 - 33)

21.14 ± 7.45 (5 - 35)

0.179

mhc_emotional

150

10.77 ± 3.80 (3 - 18)

10.53 ± 3.67 (3 - 17)

11.01 ± 3.93 (3 - 18)

0.434

mhc_social

150

14.89 ± 5.59 (5 - 30)

14.63 ± 5.53 (5 - 30)

15.15 ± 5.68 (5 - 29)

0.573

mhc_psychological

150

21.77 ± 6.39 (6 - 36)

21.57 ± 6.06 (7 - 36)

21.99 ± 6.74 (6 - 36)

0.688

resilisnce

150

16.49 ± 4.65 (6 - 30)

16.13 ± 4.13 (6 - 24)

16.86 ± 5.13 (6 - 30)

0.335

social_provision

150

13.47 ± 2.89 (5 - 20)

13.09 ± 2.59 (5 - 20)

13.85 ± 3.13 (5 - 20)

0.107

els_value_living

150

16.91 ± 3.10 (5 - 25)

16.57 ± 2.87 (6 - 22)

17.27 ± 3.30 (5 - 25)

0.165

els_life_fulfill

150

12.69 ± 3.38 (4 - 20)

12.26 ± 3.22 (5 - 19)

13.14 ± 3.51 (4 - 20)

0.115

els

150

29.61 ± 5.90 (9 - 45)

28.83 ± 5.42 (11 - 38)

30.41 ± 6.29 (9 - 45)

0.102

social_connect

150

26.67 ± 9.41 (8 - 48)

26.91 ± 9.07 (8 - 48)

26.42 ± 9.80 (8 - 48)

0.752

shs_agency

150

14.16 ± 5.11 (3 - 24)

13.75 ± 4.70 (3 - 21)

14.58 ± 5.51 (3 - 24)

0.321

shs_pathway

150

15.98 ± 4.01 (4 - 24)

15.57 ± 3.86 (5 - 24)

16.41 ± 4.14 (4 - 24)

0.201

shs

150

30.14 ± 8.71 (7 - 48)

29.32 ± 8.17 (8 - 45)

30.99 ± 9.22 (7 - 48)

0.242

esteem

150

12.56 ± 1.62 (9 - 20)

12.57 ± 1.61 (9 - 18)

12.55 ± 1.64 (10 - 20)

0.965

mlq_search

150

14.78 ± 3.54 (3 - 21)

14.53 ± 3.44 (6 - 21)

15.04 ± 3.64 (3 - 21)

0.375

mlq_presence

150

13.29 ± 4.32 (3 - 21)

13.12 ± 3.97 (4 - 21)

13.47 ± 4.66 (3 - 21)

0.617

mlq

150

28.07 ± 6.92 (6 - 42)

27.64 ± 6.34 (10 - 40)

28.51 ± 7.48 (6 - 42)

0.444

empower

150

19.17 ± 4.21 (6 - 30)

18.86 ± 4.09 (11 - 30)

19.50 ± 4.32 (6 - 30)

0.350

ismi_resistance

150

14.47 ± 2.49 (5 - 20)

14.47 ± 2.14 (10 - 20)

14.47 ± 2.82 (5 - 20)

0.999

ismi_discrimation

150

11.66 ± 3.09 (5 - 20)

11.93 ± 2.95 (5 - 20)

11.38 ± 3.22 (5 - 20)

0.272

sss_affective

150

10.01 ± 3.54 (3 - 18)

9.99 ± 3.47 (3 - 18)

10.03 ± 3.63 (3 - 18)

0.945

sss_behavior

150

9.72 ± 3.72 (3 - 18)

9.86 ± 3.77 (3 - 18)

9.58 ± 3.69 (3 - 18)

0.653

sss_cognitive

150

8.25 ± 3.72 (3 - 18)

8.21 ± 3.69 (3 - 18)

8.28 ± 3.78 (3 - 18)

0.905

sss

150

27.97 ± 10.15 (9 - 54)

28.05 ± 10.06 (9 - 54)

27.89 ± 10.31 (9 - 54)

0.923

1Mean ± SD (Range)

2Two Sample t-test

Plot

## Warning: Removed 2 rows containing non-finite values (`stat_density()`).
## Warning: Removed 1 rows containing missing values (`geom_vline()`).

Data analysis

Table

Group

Characteristic

Beta

SE1

95% CI1

p-value

recovery_stage_a

(Intercept)

3.21

0.133

2.95, 3.47

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.116

0.189

-0.487, 0.255

0.541

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.075

0.208

-0.332, 0.482

0.718

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.438

0.296

-0.142, 1.02

0.142

Pseudo R square

0.021

recovery_stage_b

(Intercept)

17.8

0.327

17.2, 18.5

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.077

0.466

-0.836, 0.990

0.869

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.419

0.462

-1.32, 0.487

0.367

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.07

0.659

-0.225, 2.36

0.109

Pseudo R square

0.013

ras_confidence

(Intercept)

29.7

0.583

28.5, 30.8

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.329

0.830

-1.30, 1.96

0.692

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.968

0.645

-0.296, 2.23

0.137

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.963

0.918

-0.837, 2.76

0.298

Pseudo R square

0.022

ras_willingness

(Intercept)

11.7

0.232

11.2, 12.1

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.221

0.331

-0.427, 0.869

0.505

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.353

0.256

-0.854, 0.149

0.172

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.653

0.365

-0.062, 1.37

0.078

Pseudo R square

0.016

ras_goal

(Intercept)

17.2

0.356

16.5, 17.9

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.383

0.507

-0.612, 1.38

0.452

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.058

0.455

-0.834, 0.949

0.899

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.787

0.648

-0.483, 2.06

0.228

Pseudo R square

0.018

ras_reliance

(Intercept)

13.0

0.333

12.3, 13.7

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.311

0.474

-0.617, 1.24

0.513

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.373

0.377

-0.367, 1.11

0.326

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.613

0.538

-0.441, 1.67

0.258

Pseudo R square

0.021

ras_domination

(Intercept)

10.1

0.268

9.57, 10.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.525

0.382

-1.27, 0.224

0.171

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.293

0.362

-1.00, 0.417

0.421

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.39

0.516

0.380, 2.40

0.009

Pseudo R square

0.025

symptom

(Intercept)

29.8

1.052

27.8, 31.9

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.320

1.497

-2.61, 3.25

0.831

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.615

0.926

-2.43, 1.20

0.509

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.16

1.319

-3.75, 1.43

0.382

Pseudo R square

0.004

slof_work

(Intercept)

22.8

0.551

21.7, 23.9

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.789

0.784

-2.33, 0.749

0.316

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.507

0.600

-1.68, 0.668

0.401

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.817

0.854

-0.858, 2.49

0.342

Pseudo R square

0.005

slof_relationship

(Intercept)

24.7

0.680

23.4, 26.0

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.749

0.968

-1.15, 2.65

0.440

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.496

0.717

-1.90, 0.910

0.492

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.865

1.022

-1.14, 2.87

0.400

Pseudo R square

0.008

satisfaction

(Intercept)

19.6

0.823

18.0, 21.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.57

1.171

-0.727, 3.87

0.182

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.771

0.869

-0.932, 2.47

0.378

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.684

1.238

-1.74, 3.11

0.582

Pseudo R square

0.021

mhc_emotional

(Intercept)

10.5

0.432

9.68, 11.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.487

0.615

-0.719, 1.69

0.430

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.288

0.428

-0.552, 1.13

0.504

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.108

0.610

-1.09, 1.30

0.860

Pseudo R square

0.007

mhc_social

(Intercept)

14.6

0.661

13.3, 15.9

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.517

0.942

-1.33, 2.36

0.584

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.540

0.731

-0.893, 1.97

0.463

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.647

1.041

-1.39, 2.69

0.536

Pseudo R square

0.009

mhc_psychological

(Intercept)

21.6

0.760

20.1, 23.1

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.421

1.082

-1.70, 2.54

0.698

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.882

0.835

-0.755, 2.52

0.294

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.159

1.190

-2.17, 2.49

0.894

Pseudo R square

0.006

resilisnce

(Intercept)

16.1

0.525

15.1, 17.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.733

0.747

-0.730, 2.20

0.328

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.372

0.619

-0.842, 1.59

0.549

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.65

0.882

-0.079, 3.38

0.065

Pseudo R square

0.038

social_provision

(Intercept)

13.1

0.330

12.4, 13.7

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.759

0.470

-0.163, 1.68

0.108

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.606

0.397

-1.38, 0.171

0.130

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.898

0.565

-0.210, 2.00

0.116

Pseudo R square

0.037

els_value_living

(Intercept)

16.6

0.360

15.9, 17.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.704

0.513

-0.301, 1.71

0.171

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.399

0.411

-0.407, 1.20

0.335

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.159

0.586

-0.989, 1.31

0.787

Pseudo R square

0.019

els_life_fulfill

(Intercept)

12.3

0.381

11.5, 13.0

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.872

0.542

-0.191, 1.93

0.110

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.523

0.373

-0.209, 1.26

0.165

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.011

0.532

-1.03, 1.05

0.983

Pseudo R square

0.022

els

(Intercept)

28.8

0.678

27.5, 30.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.58

0.966

-0.316, 3.47

0.105

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.922

0.647

-0.346, 2.19

0.158

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.098

0.922

-1.71, 1.90

0.916

Pseudo R square

0.024

social_connect

(Intercept)

26.9

1.094

24.8, 29.1

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.489

1.557

-3.54, 2.56

0.754

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.605

1.037

-1.43, 2.64

0.561

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-3.46

1.478

-6.35, -0.560

0.022

Pseudo R square

0.016

shs_agency

(Intercept)

13.7

0.584

12.6, 14.9

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.831

0.832

-0.799, 2.46

0.319

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.202

0.580

-0.935, 1.34

0.728

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.585

0.827

-1.04, 2.21

0.482

Pseudo R square

0.012

shs_pathway

(Intercept)

15.6

0.452

14.7, 16.5

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.840

0.643

-0.421, 2.10

0.194

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.249

0.463

-0.659, 1.16

0.592

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.008

0.660

-1.30, 1.29

0.991

Pseudo R square

0.012

shs

(Intercept)

29.3

0.987

27.4, 31.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.67

1.405

-1.08, 4.42

0.236

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.441

0.962

-1.44, 2.33

0.648

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.564

1.370

-2.12, 3.25

0.682

Pseudo R square

0.013

esteem

(Intercept)

12.6

0.175

12.2, 12.9

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.012

0.248

-0.499, 0.475

0.962

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.171

0.264

-0.347, 0.689

0.520

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.014

0.377

-0.725, 0.753

0.971

Pseudo R square

0.003

mlq_search

(Intercept)

14.5

0.401

13.7, 15.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.514

0.572

-0.606, 1.63

0.370

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.438

0.510

-0.562, 1.44

0.393

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.626

0.727

-2.05, 0.799

0.392

Pseudo R square

0.004

mlq_presence

(Intercept)

13.1

0.492

12.2, 14.1

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.355

0.700

-1.02, 1.73

0.613

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.592

0.560

-0.505, 1.69

0.294

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.071

0.797

-1.63, 1.49

0.929

Pseudo R square

0.005

mlq

(Intercept)

27.6

0.797

26.1, 29.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.869

1.134

-1.35, 3.09

0.445

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.02

0.926

-0.796, 2.84

0.274

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.666

1.320

-3.25, 1.92

0.615

Pseudo R square

0.005

empower

(Intercept)

18.9

0.479

17.9, 19.8

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.645

0.683

-0.693, 1.98

0.346

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.695

0.478

-0.241, 1.63

0.150

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.702

0.680

-2.04, 0.632

0.306

Pseudo R square

0.006

ismi_resistance

(Intercept)

14.5

0.282

13.9, 15.0

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.001

0.401

-0.787, 0.785

0.999

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.142

0.379

-0.884, 0.600

0.708

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.855

0.539

-0.202, 1.91

0.116

Pseudo R square

0.012

ismi_discrimation

(Intercept)

11.9

0.357

11.2, 12.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.556

0.509

-1.55, 0.441

0.276

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.151

0.396

-0.928, 0.626

0.705

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.227

0.565

-1.33, 0.880

0.689

Pseudo R square

0.012

sss_affective

(Intercept)

9.99

0.403

9.20, 10.8

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.040

0.574

-1.08, 1.17

0.944

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.108

0.434

-0.958, 0.742

0.804

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.08

0.618

-2.29, 0.129

0.084

Pseudo R square

0.014

sss_behavior

(Intercept)

9.86

0.424

9.02, 10.7

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.274

0.603

-1.46, 0.909

0.650

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.240

0.452

-1.13, 0.645

0.596

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.490

0.643

-1.75, 0.771

0.448

Pseudo R square

0.008

sss_cognitive

(Intercept)

8.21

0.421

7.39, 9.04

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.073

0.599

-1.10, 1.25

0.903

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.302

0.463

-0.606, 1.21

0.517

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.23

0.660

-2.52, 0.065

0.066

Pseudo R square

0.009

sss

(Intercept)

28.1

1.160

25.8, 30.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.161

1.651

-3.40, 3.08

0.923

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.127

1.130

-2.34, 2.09

0.911

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-2.58

1.610

-5.74, 0.572

0.113

Pseudo R square

0.010

1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval

Text

recovery_stage_a

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.34) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.21 (95% CI [2.95, 3.47], t(211) = 24.16, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.25], t(211) = -0.61, p = 0.540; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.22])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.48], t(211) = 0.36, p = 0.717; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.41])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.44, 95% CI [-0.14, 1.02], t(211) = 1.48, p = 0.139; Std. beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.87])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

recovery_stage_b

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.48) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.84 (95% CI [17.20, 18.48], t(211) = 54.55, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.84, 0.99], t(211) = 0.16, p = 0.869; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.35])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.42, 95% CI [-1.32, 0.49], t(211) = -0.91, p = 0.365; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.17])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.07, 95% CI [-0.23, 2.36], t(211) = 1.62, p = 0.106; Std. beta = 0.37, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.83])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_confidence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.68 (95% CI [28.54, 30.83], t(211) = 50.92, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-1.30, 1.96], t(211) = 0.40, p = 0.692; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.38])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.97, 95% CI [-0.30, 2.23], t(211) = 1.50, p = 0.133; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.44])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.96, 95% CI [-0.84, 2.76], t(211) = 1.05, p = 0.294; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.54])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_willingness

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.67 (95% CI [11.22, 12.13], t(211) = 50.24, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.87], t(211) = 0.67, p = 0.504; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.43])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.35, 95% CI [-0.85, 0.15], t(211) = -1.38, p = 0.168; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.07])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.65, 95% CI [-0.06, 1.37], t(211) = 1.79, p = 0.074; Std. beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.68])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_goal

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.60) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.16 (95% CI [16.46, 17.86], t(211) = 48.14, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-0.61, 1.38], t(211) = 0.75, p = 0.451; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.44])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.83, 0.95], t(211) = 0.13, p = 0.899; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.30])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.79, 95% CI [-0.48, 2.06], t(211) = 1.21, p = 0.224; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.66])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_reliance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.00 (95% CI [12.35, 13.65], t(211) = 39.08, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.62, 1.24], t(211) = 0.66, p = 0.512; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.42])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.37, 95% CI [-0.37, 1.11], t(211) = 0.99, p = 0.323; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.38])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.61, 95% CI [-0.44, 1.67], t(211) = 1.14, p = 0.254; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.57])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_domination

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.54) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.09 (95% CI [9.57, 10.62], t(211) = 37.63, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.52, 95% CI [-1.27, 0.22], t(211) = -1.37, p = 0.169; Std. beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.10])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-1.00, 0.42], t(211) = -0.81, p = 0.419; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.18])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.39, 95% CI [0.38, 2.40], t(211) = 2.70, p = 0.007; Std. beta = 0.60, 95% CI [0.16, 1.03])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

symptom

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.82) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.43e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.83 (95% CI [27.77, 31.89], t(211) = 28.37, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-2.61, 3.25], t(211) = 0.21, p = 0.831; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.35])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.61, 95% CI [-2.43, 1.20], t(211) = -0.66, p = 0.507; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.13])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.16, 95% CI [-3.75, 1.43], t(211) = -0.88, p = 0.380; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.15])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_work

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.76e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.82 (95% CI [21.74, 23.90], t(211) = 41.41, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.79, 95% CI [-2.33, 0.75], t(211) = -1.01, p = 0.315; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.16])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.51, 95% CI [-1.68, 0.67], t(211) = -0.85, p = 0.398; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.14])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.82, 95% CI [-0.86, 2.49], t(211) = 0.96, p = 0.339; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.52])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_relationship

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.47e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 24.71 (95% CI [23.38, 26.04], t(211) = 36.34, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.75, 95% CI [-1.15, 2.65], t(211) = 0.77, p = 0.439; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.45])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.50, 95% CI [-1.90, 0.91], t(211) = -0.69, p = 0.490; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.15])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.86, 95% CI [-1.14, 2.87], t(211) = 0.85, p = 0.397; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.48])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

satisfaction

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.57 (95% CI [17.95, 21.18], t(211) = 23.78, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.57, 95% CI [-0.73, 3.87], t(211) = 1.34, p = 0.180; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.54])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.77, 95% CI [-0.93, 2.47], t(211) = 0.89, p = 0.375; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.34])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.68, 95% CI [-1.74, 3.11], t(211) = 0.55, p = 0.581; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.43])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_emotional

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.55e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.53 (95% CI [9.68, 11.37], t(211) = 24.36, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.49, 95% CI [-0.72, 1.69], t(211) = 0.79, p = 0.428; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.45])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.55, 1.13], t(211) = 0.67, p = 0.502; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.30])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-1.09, 1.30], t(211) = 0.18, p = 0.859; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.35])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_social

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.22e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.63 (95% CI [13.34, 15.93], t(211) = 22.12, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.52, 95% CI [-1.33, 2.36], t(211) = 0.55, p = 0.583; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.41])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.54, 95% CI [-0.89, 1.97], t(211) = 0.74, p = 0.460; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.34])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.65, 95% CI [-1.39, 2.69], t(211) = 0.62, p = 0.534; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.47])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_psychological

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.76e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.57 (95% CI [20.08, 23.06], t(211) = 28.37, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.42, 95% CI [-1.70, 2.54], t(211) = 0.39, p = 0.697; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.39])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.88, 95% CI [-0.76, 2.52], t(211) = 1.06, p = 0.291; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.38])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-2.17, 2.49], t(211) = 0.13, p = 0.894; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.38])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

resilisnce

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.13 (95% CI [15.10, 17.16], t(211) = 30.75, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.73, 95% CI [-0.73, 2.20], t(211) = 0.98, p = 0.326; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.48])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.37, 95% CI [-0.84, 1.59], t(211) = 0.60, p = 0.548; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.34])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.65, 95% CI [-0.08, 3.38], t(211) = 1.87, p = 0.061; Std. beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.73])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_provision

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.66) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.09 (95% CI [12.44, 13.74], t(211) = 39.63, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.76, 95% CI [-0.16, 1.68], t(211) = 1.61, p = 0.107; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.57])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.61, 95% CI [-1.38, 0.17], t(211) = -1.53, p = 0.126; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.06])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.90, 95% CI [-0.21, 2.00], t(211) = 1.59, p = 0.112; Std. beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.68])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_value_living

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.57 (95% CI [15.86, 17.27], t(211) = 45.98, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.70, 95% CI [-0.30, 1.71], t(211) = 1.37, p = 0.170; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.54])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.40, 95% CI [-0.41, 1.20], t(211) = 0.97, p = 0.332; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.38])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.99, 1.31], t(211) = 0.27, p = 0.786; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.41])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_life_fulfill

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.26 (95% CI [11.52, 13.01], t(211) = 32.21, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.87, 95% CI [-0.19, 1.93], t(211) = 1.61, p = 0.108; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.58])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.52, 95% CI [-0.21, 1.26], t(211) = 1.40, p = 0.161; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.38])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-1.03, 1.05], t(211) = 0.02, p = 0.983; Std. beta = 3.34e-03, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.32])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.83 (95% CI [27.50, 30.16], t(211) = 42.50, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.58, 95% CI [-0.32, 3.47], t(211) = 1.63, p = 0.103; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.58])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.92, 95% CI [-0.35, 2.19], t(211) = 1.43, p = 0.154; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.37])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-1.71, 1.90], t(211) = 0.11, p = 0.916; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.32])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_connect

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 26.91 (95% CI [24.76, 29.05], t(211) = 24.60, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.49, 95% CI [-3.54, 2.56], t(211) = -0.31, p = 0.753; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.27])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.61, 95% CI [-1.43, 2.64], t(211) = 0.58, p = 0.559; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.27])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -3.46, 95% CI [-6.35, -0.56], t(211) = -2.34, p = 0.019; Std. beta = -0.36, 95% CI [-0.66, -0.06])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_agency

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.75 (95% CI [12.61, 14.89], t(211) = 23.54, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.83, 95% CI [-0.80, 2.46], t(211) = 1.00, p = 0.318; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.49])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.94, 1.34], t(211) = 0.35, p = 0.727; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.26])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.58, 95% CI [-1.04, 2.21], t(211) = 0.71, p = 0.480; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.44])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_pathway

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.57 (95% CI [14.68, 16.45], t(211) = 34.45, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.84, 95% CI [-0.42, 2.10], t(211) = 1.31, p = 0.192; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.53])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.66, 1.16], t(211) = 0.54, p = 0.590; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.29])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -7.80e-03, 95% CI [-1.30, 1.29], t(211) = -0.01, p = 0.991; Std. beta = -1.97e-03, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.33])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.32 (95% CI [27.38, 31.25], t(211) = 29.71, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.67, 95% CI [-1.08, 4.42], t(211) = 1.19, p = 0.234; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.52])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.44, 95% CI [-1.44, 2.33], t(211) = 0.46, p = 0.646; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.27])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.56, 95% CI [-2.12, 3.25], t(211) = 0.41, p = 0.681; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.38])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

esteem

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.38) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.93e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.57 (95% CI [12.22, 12.91], t(211) = 72.01, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.48], t(211) = -0.05, p = 0.962; Std. beta = -7.81e-03, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.32])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.69], t(211) = 0.65, p = 0.518; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.46])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.72, 0.75], t(211) = 0.04, p = 0.970; Std. beta = 9.29e-03, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.50])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_search

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.59) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.10e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.53 (95% CI [13.74, 15.31], t(211) = 36.18, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.51, 95% CI [-0.61, 1.63], t(211) = 0.90, p = 0.368; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.47])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.44, 95% CI [-0.56, 1.44], t(211) = 0.86, p = 0.391; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.42])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.63, 95% CI [-2.05, 0.80], t(211) = -0.86, p = 0.389; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.59, 0.23])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_presence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.11e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.12 (95% CI [12.15, 14.08], t(211) = 26.69, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-1.02, 1.73], t(211) = 0.51, p = 0.612; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.41])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.59, 95% CI [-0.50, 1.69], t(211) = 1.06, p = 0.290; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.40])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-1.63, 1.49], t(211) = -0.09, p = 0.929; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.35])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.88e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.64 (95% CI [26.08, 29.21], t(211) = 34.70, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.87, 95% CI [-1.35, 3.09], t(211) = 0.77, p = 0.444; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.45])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.02, 95% CI [-0.80, 2.84], t(211) = 1.10, p = 0.271; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.41])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.67, 95% CI [-3.25, 1.92], t(211) = -0.50, p = 0.614; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.28])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

empower

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.61e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.86 (95% CI [17.92, 19.80], t(211) = 39.33, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.64, 95% CI [-0.69, 1.98], t(211) = 0.94, p = 0.345; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.48])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.70, 95% CI [-0.24, 1.63], t(211) = 1.46, p = 0.145; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.39])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.70, 95% CI [-2.04, 0.63], t(211) = -1.03, p = 0.302; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.15])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_resistance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.54) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.47 (95% CI [13.92, 15.03], t(211) = 51.38, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -7.11e-04, 95% CI [-0.79, 0.79], t(211) = -1.77e-03, p = 0.999; Std. beta = -2.86e-04, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.32])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.88, 0.60], t(211) = -0.38, p = 0.708; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.24])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.85, 95% CI [-0.20, 1.91], t(211) = 1.58, p = 0.113; Std. beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.77])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_discrimation

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.93 (95% CI [11.23, 12.63], t(211) = 33.41, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.56, 95% CI [-1.55, 0.44], t(211) = -1.09, p = 0.274; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.14])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.93, 0.63], t(211) = -0.38, p = 0.704; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.20])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-1.33, 0.88], t(211) = -0.40, p = 0.688; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.28])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_affective

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 9.99 (95% CI [9.20, 10.78], t(211) = 24.77, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-1.08, 1.17], t(211) = 0.07, p = 0.944; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.33])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.96, 0.74], t(211) = -0.25, p = 0.804; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.21])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.08, 95% CI [-2.29, 0.13], t(211) = -1.75, p = 0.080; Std. beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-0.64, 0.04])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_behavior

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.86e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 9.86 (95% CI [9.02, 10.69], t(211) = 23.25, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-1.46, 0.91], t(211) = -0.45, p = 0.650; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.24])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.24, 95% CI [-1.13, 0.64], t(211) = -0.53, p = 0.594; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.17])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.49, 95% CI [-1.75, 0.77], t(211) = -0.76, p = 0.446; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.21])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_cognitive

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.15e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.21 (95% CI [7.39, 9.04], t(211) = 19.51, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-1.10, 1.25], t(211) = 0.12, p = 0.903; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.34])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.61, 1.21], t(211) = 0.65, p = 0.515; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.33])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.23, 95% CI [-2.52, 0.06], t(211) = -1.86, p = 0.063; Std. beta = -0.33, 95% CI [-0.68, 0.02])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.76e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.05 (95% CI [25.78, 30.33], t(211) = 24.19, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-3.40, 3.08], t(211) = -0.10, p = 0.922; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.30])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-2.34, 2.09], t(211) = -0.11, p = 0.911; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.20])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.58, 95% CI [-5.74, 0.57], t(211) = -1.60, p = 0.109; Std. beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-0.56, 0.06])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

Likelihood ratio tests

outcome

model

npar

AIC

BIC

logLik

deviance

Chisq

Df

p

recovery_stage_a

null

3

679.862

690.002

-336.931

673.862

recovery_stage_a

random

6

679.847

700.126

-333.923

667.847

6.015

3

0.111

recovery_stage_b

null

3

1,058.596

1,068.736

-526.298

1,052.596

recovery_stage_b

random

6

1,061.169

1,081.449

-524.585

1,049.169

3.427

3

0.330

ras_confidence

null

3

1,289.062

1,299.201

-641.531

1,283.062

ras_confidence

random

6

1,283.826

1,304.105

-635.913

1,271.826

11.236

3

0.011

ras_willingness

null

3

882.832

892.972

-438.416

876.832

ras_willingness

random

6

884.143

904.423

-436.072

872.143

4.689

3

0.196

ras_goal

null

3

1,086.172

1,096.311

-540.086

1,080.172

ras_goal

random

6

1,087.311

1,107.590

-537.655

1,075.311

4.861

3

0.182

ras_reliance

null

3

1,046.008

1,056.147

-520.004

1,040.008

ras_reliance

random

6

1,043.501

1,063.780

-515.750

1,031.501

8.507

3

0.037

ras_domination

null

3

973.486

983.625

-483.743

967.486

ras_domination

random

6

970.152

990.431

-479.076

958.152

9.333

3

0.025

symptom

null

3

1,509.489

1,519.628

-751.744

1,503.489

symptom

random

6

1,511.482

1,531.761

-749.741

1,499.482

4.007

3

0.261

slof_work

null

3

1,253.027

1,263.167

-623.514

1,247.027

slof_work

random

6

1,257.420

1,277.699

-622.710

1,245.420

1.607

3

0.658

slof_relationship

null

3

1,340.773

1,350.913

-667.386

1,334.773

slof_relationship

random

6

1,344.963

1,365.242

-666.481

1,332.963

1.810

3

0.613

satisfaction

null

3

1,427.680

1,437.820

-710.840

1,421.680

satisfaction

random

6

1,427.799

1,448.078

-707.899

1,415.799

5.881

3

0.118

mhc_emotional

null

3

1,136.498

1,146.638

-565.249

1,130.498

mhc_emotional

random

6

1,140.454

1,160.733

-564.227

1,128.454

2.044

3

0.563

mhc_social

null

3

1,336.270

1,346.410

-665.135

1,330.270

mhc_social

random

6

1,338.600

1,358.879

-663.300

1,326.600

3.670

3

0.299

mhc_psychological

null

3

1,395.142

1,405.281

-694.571

1,389.142

mhc_psychological

random

6

1,398.288

1,418.568

-693.144

1,386.288

2.853

3

0.415

resilisnce

null

3

1,252.758

1,262.897

-623.379

1,246.758

resilisnce

random

6

1,245.936

1,266.215

-616.968

1,233.936

12.822

3

0.005

social_provision

null

3

1,048.882

1,059.022

-521.441

1,042.882

social_provision

random

6

1,047.238

1,067.518

-517.619

1,035.238

7.644

3

0.054

els_value_living

null

3

1,077.848

1,087.988

-535.924

1,071.848

els_value_living

random

6

1,078.816

1,099.095

-533.408

1,066.816

5.032

3

0.169

els_life_fulfill

null

3

1,084.947

1,095.087

-539.474

1,078.947

els_life_fulfill

random

6

1,084.218

1,104.497

-536.109

1,072.218

6.729

3

0.081

els

null

3

1,332.669

1,342.809

-663.335

1,326.669

els

random

6

1,331.318

1,351.597

-659.659

1,319.318

7.351

3

0.062

social_connect

null

3

1,540.234

1,550.373

-767.117

1,534.234

social_connect

random

6

1,537.891

1,558.171

-762.946

1,525.891

8.342

3

0.039

shs_agency

null

3

1,268.953

1,279.093

-631.477

1,262.953

shs_agency

random

6

1,271.565

1,291.844

-629.783

1,259.565

3.388

3

0.336

shs_pathway

null

3

1,160.417

1,170.557

-577.208

1,154.417

shs_pathway

random

6

1,164.048

1,184.327

-576.024

1,152.048

2.369

3

0.499

shs

null

3

1,493.736

1,503.875

-743.868

1,487.736

shs

random

6

1,496.694

1,516.974

-742.347

1,484.694

3.041

3

0.385

esteem

null

3

790.347

800.487

-392.174

784.347

esteem

random

6

795.436

815.716

-391.718

783.436

0.911

3

0.823

mlq_search

null

3

1,133.813

1,143.953

-563.906

1,127.813

mlq_search

random

6

1,138.489

1,158.768

-563.245

1,126.489

1.324

3

0.723

mlq_presence

null

3

1,209.625

1,219.765

-601.812

1,203.625

mlq_presence

random

6

1,213.383

1,233.662

-600.691

1,201.383

2.242

3

0.524

mlq

null

3

1,421.329

1,431.468

-707.664

1,415.329

mlq

random

6

1,425.525

1,445.804

-706.762

1,413.525

1.804

3

0.614

empower

null

3

1,182.850

1,192.990

-588.425

1,176.850

empower

random

6

1,186.176

1,206.455

-587.088

1,174.176

2.674

3

0.445

ismi_resistance

null

3

988.915

999.055

-491.458

982.915

ismi_resistance

random

6

990.972

1,011.252

-489.486

978.972

3.943

3

0.268

ismi_discrimation

null

3

1,068.292

1,078.432

-531.146

1,062.292

ismi_discrimation

random

6

1,071.736

1,092.015

-529.868

1,059.736

2.556

3

0.465

sss_affective

null

3

1,121.986

1,132.126

-557.993

1,115.986

sss_affective

random

6

1,120.463

1,140.742

-554.231

1,108.463

7.523

3

0.057

sss_behavior

null

3

1,138.302

1,148.442

-566.151

1,132.302

sss_behavior

random

6

1,140.989

1,161.269

-564.495

1,128.989

3.313

3

0.346

sss_cognitive

null

3

1,140.449

1,150.589

-567.224

1,134.449

sss_cognitive

random

6

1,141.942

1,162.222

-564.971

1,129.942

4.507

3

0.212

sss

null

3

1,566.658

1,576.797

-780.329

1,560.658

sss

random

6

1,566.796

1,587.075

-777.398

1,554.796

5.862

3

0.119

Post hoc analysis

Table

outcome

time

control

treatment

between

n

estimate

within es

n

estimate

within es

p

es

recovery_stage_a

1st

76

3.21 ± 1.16

74

3.09 ± 1.16

0.541

0.122

recovery_stage_a

2nd

34

3.29 ± 1.13

-0.079

33

3.61 ± 1.13

-0.541

0.246

-0.339

recovery_stage_b

1st

76

17.84 ± 2.85

74

17.92 ± 2.85

0.869

-0.037

recovery_stage_b

2nd

34

17.42 ± 2.68

0.203

33

18.57 ± 2.68

-0.314

0.082

-0.555

ras_confidence

1st

76

29.68 ± 5.08

74

30.01 ± 5.08

0.692

-0.119

ras_confidence

2nd

34

30.65 ± 4.35

-0.349

33

31.94 ± 4.34

-0.696

0.225

-0.466

ras_willingness

1st

76

11.67 ± 2.03

74

11.89 ± 2.03

0.505

-0.201

ras_willingness

2nd

34

11.32 ± 1.73

0.320

33

12.19 ± 1.73

-0.272

0.040

-0.793

ras_goal

1st

76

17.16 ± 3.11

74

17.54 ± 3.11

0.452

-0.192

ras_goal

2nd

34

17.22 ± 2.80

-0.029

33

18.39 ± 2.80

-0.424

0.089

-0.587

ras_reliance

1st

76

13.00 ± 2.90

74

13.31 ± 2.90

0.513

-0.191

ras_reliance

2nd

34

13.37 ± 2.50

-0.229

33

14.30 ± 2.50

-0.606

0.132

-0.567

ras_domination

1st

76

10.09 ± 2.34

74

9.57 ± 2.34

0.171

0.328

ras_domination

2nd

34

9.80 ± 2.16

0.183

33

10.67 ± 2.16

-0.686

0.102

-0.542

symptom

1st

76

29.83 ± 9.17

74

30.15 ± 9.17

0.831

-0.082

symptom

2nd

34

29.21 ± 7.29

0.157

33

28.37 ± 7.28

0.453

0.638

0.214

slof_work

1st

76

22.82 ± 4.80

74

22.03 ± 4.80

0.316

0.306

slof_work

2nd

34

22.31 ± 4.08

0.197

33

22.34 ± 4.08

-0.120

0.978

-0.011

slof_relationship

1st

76

24.71 ± 5.93

74

25.46 ± 5.93

0.440

-0.244

slof_relationship

2nd

34

24.21 ± 4.99

0.161

33

25.83 ± 4.98

-0.120

0.187

-0.525

satisfaction

1st

76

19.57 ± 7.17

74

21.14 ± 7.17

0.182

-0.421

satisfaction

2nd

34

20.34 ± 6.04

-0.207

33

22.59 ± 6.03

-0.391

0.128

-0.605

mhc_emotional

1st

76

10.53 ± 3.77

74

11.01 ± 3.77

0.430

-0.267

mhc_emotional

2nd

34

10.81 ± 3.10

-0.158

33

11.41 ± 3.10

-0.217

0.433

-0.326

mhc_social

1st

76

14.63 ± 5.77

74

15.15 ± 5.77

0.584

-0.164

mhc_social

2nd

34

15.17 ± 4.93

-0.172

33

16.34 ± 4.93

-0.377

0.335

-0.370

mhc_psychological

1st

76

21.57 ± 6.63

74

21.99 ± 6.63

0.698

-0.117

mhc_psychological

2nd

34

22.45 ± 5.65

-0.245

33

23.03 ± 5.65

-0.290

0.675

-0.161

resilisnce

1st

76

16.13 ± 4.57

74

16.86 ± 4.57

0.328

-0.273

resilisnce

2nd

34

16.50 ± 4.01

-0.139

33

18.89 ± 4.00

-0.753

0.016

-0.888

social_provision

1st

76

13.09 ± 2.88

74

13.85 ± 2.88

0.108

-0.441

social_provision

2nd

34

12.49 ± 2.54

0.352

33

14.14 ± 2.54

-0.169

0.008

-0.962

els_value_living

1st

76

16.57 ± 3.14

74

17.27 ± 3.14

0.171

-0.397

els_value_living

2nd

34

16.96 ± 2.72

-0.225

33

17.83 ± 2.72

-0.314

0.195

-0.486

els_life_fulfill

1st

76

12.26 ± 3.32

74

13.14 ± 3.32

0.110

-0.548

els_life_fulfill

2nd

34

12.79 ± 2.73

-0.329

33

13.67 ± 2.72

-0.336

0.186

-0.555

els

1st

76

28.83 ± 5.91

74

30.41 ± 5.91

0.104

-0.573

els

2nd

34

29.75 ± 4.81

-0.335

33

31.43 ± 4.81

-0.371

0.156

-0.608

social_connect

1st

76

26.91 ± 9.53

74

26.42 ± 9.53

0.754

0.111

social_connect

2nd

34

27.51 ± 7.75

-0.137

33

23.57 ± 7.74

0.647

0.038

0.895

shs_agency

1st

76

13.75 ± 5.09

74

14.58 ± 5.09

0.319

-0.336

shs_agency

2nd

34

13.95 ± 4.20

-0.082

33

15.37 ± 4.20

-0.318

0.169

-0.572

shs_pathway

1st

76

15.57 ± 3.94

74

16.41 ± 3.94

0.194

-0.424

shs_pathway

2nd

34

15.82 ± 3.28

-0.126

33

16.65 ± 3.28

-0.122

0.301

-0.420

shs

1st

76

29.32 ± 8.60

74

30.99 ± 8.60

0.236

-0.408

shs

2nd

34

29.76 ± 7.05

-0.108

33

31.99 ± 7.05

-0.245

0.196

-0.546

esteem

1st

76

12.57 ± 1.52

74

12.55 ± 1.52

0.962

0.010

esteem

2nd

34

12.74 ± 1.47

-0.143

33

12.74 ± 1.47

-0.154

0.995

-0.002

mlq_search

1st

76

14.53 ± 3.50

74

15.04 ± 3.50

0.370

-0.230

mlq_search

2nd

34

14.96 ± 3.15

-0.196

33

14.85 ± 3.15

0.084

0.885

0.050

mlq_presence

1st

76

13.12 ± 4.29

74

13.47 ± 4.29

0.613

-0.147

mlq_presence

2nd

34

13.71 ± 3.70

-0.245

33

13.99 ± 3.70

-0.215

0.755

-0.117

mlq

1st

76

27.64 ± 6.95

74

28.51 ± 6.95

0.445

-0.217

mlq

2nd

34

28.66 ± 6.05

-0.255

33

28.87 ± 6.05

-0.088

0.891

-0.051

empower

1st

76

18.86 ± 4.18

74

19.50 ± 4.18

0.346

-0.317

empower

2nd

34

19.55 ± 3.45

-0.341

33

19.49 ± 3.45

0.003

0.946

0.028

ismi_resistance

1st

76

14.47 ± 2.46

74

14.47 ± 2.46

0.999

0.000

ismi_resistance

2nd

34

14.33 ± 2.26

0.085

33

15.19 ± 2.26

-0.426

0.124

-0.511

ismi_discrimation

1st

76

11.93 ± 3.11

74

11.38 ± 3.11

0.276

0.326

ismi_discrimation

2nd

34

11.78 ± 2.67

0.088

33

11.00 ± 2.67

0.221

0.231

0.459

sss_affective

1st

76

9.99 ± 3.51

74

10.03 ± 3.51

0.944

-0.022

sss_affective

2nd

34

9.88 ± 2.98

0.058

33

8.84 ± 2.98

0.639

0.153

0.560

sss_behavior

1st

76

9.86 ± 3.69

74

9.58 ± 3.69

0.650

0.142

sss_behavior

2nd

34

9.61 ± 3.12

0.124

33

8.85 ± 3.12

0.377

0.317

0.395

sss_cognitive

1st

76

8.21 ± 3.67

74

8.28 ± 3.67

0.903

-0.037

sss_cognitive

2nd

34

8.51 ± 3.13

-0.151

33

7.36 ± 3.13

0.465

0.132

0.580

sss

1st

76

28.05 ± 10.11

74

27.89 ± 10.11

0.923

0.033

sss

2nd

34

27.93 ± 8.29

0.026

33

25.18 ± 8.28

0.563

0.177

0.570

Between group

recovery_stage_a

1st

t(200.23) = -0.61, p = 0.541, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-0.49 to 0.26)

2st

t(206.20) = 1.16, p = 0.246, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.22 to 0.87)

recovery_stage_b

1st

t(188.85) = 0.16, p = 0.869, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-0.84 to 1.00)

2st

t(203.57) = 1.75, p = 0.082, Cohen d = -0.55, 95% CI (-0.15 to 2.43)

ras_confidence

1st

t(170.08) = 0.40, p = 0.692, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.31 to 1.97)

2st

t(209.30) = 1.22, p = 0.225, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (-0.80 to 3.39)

ras_willingness

1st

t(169.89) = 0.67, p = 0.505, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.43 to 0.87)

2st

t(209.42) = 2.07, p = 0.040, Cohen d = -0.79, 95% CI (0.04 to 1.71)

ras_goal

1st

t(179.53) = 0.75, p = 0.452, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.62 to 1.38)

2st

t(204.72) = 1.71, p = 0.089, Cohen d = -0.59, 95% CI (-0.18 to 2.52)

ras_reliance

1st

t(171.52) = 0.66, p = 0.513, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.62 to 1.25)

2st

t(208.43) = 1.51, p = 0.132, Cohen d = -0.57, 95% CI (-0.28 to 2.13)

ras_domination

1st

t(184.41) = -1.37, p = 0.171, Cohen d = 0.33, 95% CI (-1.28 to 0.23)

2st

t(203.70) = 1.64, p = 0.102, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (-0.17 to 1.91)

symptom

1st

t(160.94) = 0.21, p = 0.831, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-2.64 to 3.28)

2st

t(212.86) = -0.47, p = 0.638, Cohen d = 0.21, 95% CI (-4.35 to 2.67)

slof_work

1st

t(169.25) = -1.01, p = 0.316, Cohen d = 0.31, 95% CI (-2.34 to 0.76)

2st

t(209.82) = 0.03, p = 0.978, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-1.94 to 1.99)

slof_relationship

1st

t(167.73) = 0.77, p = 0.440, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-1.16 to 2.66)

2st

t(210.75) = 1.32, p = 0.187, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (-0.79 to 4.02)

satisfaction

1st

t(167.77) = 1.34, p = 0.182, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-0.74 to 3.88)

2st

t(210.73) = 1.53, p = 0.128, Cohen d = -0.61, 95% CI (-0.65 to 5.16)

mhc_emotional

1st

t(165.02) = 0.79, p = 0.430, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.73 to 1.70)

2st

t(212.22) = 0.78, p = 0.433, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-0.90 to 2.09)

mhc_social

1st

t(170.06) = 0.55, p = 0.584, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-1.34 to 2.38)

2st

t(209.32) = 0.97, p = 0.335, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-1.21 to 3.54)

mhc_psychological

1st

t(169.76) = 0.39, p = 0.698, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.72 to 2.56)

2st

t(209.50) = 0.42, p = 0.675, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-2.14 to 3.30)

resilisnce

1st

t(173.94) = 0.98, p = 0.328, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.74 to 2.21)

2st

t(207.07) = 2.44, p = 0.016, Cohen d = -0.89, 95% CI (0.45 to 4.31)

social_provision

1st

t(175.01) = 1.61, p = 0.108, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (-0.17 to 1.69)

2st

t(206.53) = 2.67, p = 0.008, Cohen d = -0.96, 95% CI (0.43 to 2.88)

els_value_living

1st

t(171.86) = 1.37, p = 0.171, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (-0.31 to 1.72)

2st

t(208.23) = 1.30, p = 0.195, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-0.44 to 2.17)

els_life_fulfill

1st

t(164.59) = 1.61, p = 0.110, Cohen d = -0.55, 95% CI (-0.20 to 1.94)

2st

t(212.40) = 1.33, p = 0.186, Cohen d = -0.56, 95% CI (-0.43 to 2.20)

els

1st

t(163.56) = 1.63, p = 0.104, Cohen d = -0.57, 95% CI (-0.33 to 3.48)

2st

t(212.76) = 1.42, p = 0.156, Cohen d = -0.61, 95% CI (-0.64 to 3.99)

social_connect

1st

t(163.34) = -0.31, p = 0.754, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-3.56 to 2.59)

2st

t(212.82) = -2.08, p = 0.038, Cohen d = 0.90, 95% CI (-7.68 to -0.21)

shs_agency

1st

t(165.11) = 1.00, p = 0.319, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.81 to 2.47)

2st

t(212.18) = 1.38, p = 0.169, Cohen d = -0.57, 95% CI (-0.61 to 3.44)

shs_pathway

1st

t(166.43) = 1.31, p = 0.194, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-0.43 to 2.11)

2st

t(211.50) = 1.04, p = 0.301, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-0.75 to 2.41)

shs

1st

t(164.36) = 1.19, p = 0.236, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-1.10 to 4.44)

2st

t(212.49) = 1.30, p = 0.196, Cohen d = -0.55, 95% CI (-1.16 to 5.63)

esteem

1st

t(196.60) = -0.05, p = 0.962, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-0.50 to 0.48)

2st

t(204.95) = 0.01, p = 0.995, Cohen d = -0.00, 95% CI (-0.71 to 0.71)

mlq_search

1st

t(179.20) = 0.90, p = 0.370, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.61 to 1.64)

2st

t(204.82) = -0.15, p = 0.885, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-1.63 to 1.41)

mlq_presence

1st

t(171.70) = 0.51, p = 0.613, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-1.03 to 1.74)

2st

t(208.33) = 0.31, p = 0.755, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.50 to 2.07)

mlq

1st

t(172.97) = 0.77, p = 0.445, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-1.37 to 3.11)

2st

t(207.60) = 0.14, p = 0.891, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-2.71 to 3.12)

empower

1st

t(165.21) = 0.94, p = 0.346, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.70 to 1.99)

2st

t(212.13) = -0.07, p = 0.946, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-1.72 to 1.60)

ismi_resistance

1st

t(183.94) = -0.00, p = 0.999, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-0.79 to 0.79)

2st

t(203.75) = 1.55, p = 0.124, Cohen d = -0.51, 95% CI (-0.24 to 1.94)

ismi_discrimation

1st

t(170.29) = -1.09, p = 0.276, Cohen d = 0.33, 95% CI (-1.56 to 0.45)

2st

t(209.18) = -1.20, p = 0.231, Cohen d = 0.46, 95% CI (-2.07 to 0.50)

sss_affective

1st

t(168.67) = 0.07, p = 0.944, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-1.09 to 1.17)

2st

t(210.18) = -1.43, p = 0.153, Cohen d = 0.56, 95% CI (-2.48 to 0.39)

sss_behavior

1st

t(168.19) = -0.45, p = 0.650, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-1.47 to 0.92)

2st

t(210.47) = -1.00, p = 0.317, Cohen d = 0.39, 95% CI (-2.27 to 0.74)

sss_cognitive

1st

t(169.84) = 0.12, p = 0.903, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-1.11 to 1.26)

2st

t(209.45) = -1.51, p = 0.132, Cohen d = 0.58, 95% CI (-2.66 to 0.35)

sss

1st

t(164.34) = -0.10, p = 0.923, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-3.42 to 3.10)

2st

t(212.50) = -1.36, p = 0.177, Cohen d = 0.57, 95% CI (-6.73 to 1.25)

Within treatment group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(102.85) = 2.42, p = 0.035, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (0.09 to 0.93)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(91.86) = 1.37, p = 0.347, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.29 to 1.58)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(78.15) = 2.94, p = 0.009, Cohen d = -0.70, 95% CI (0.62 to 3.24)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(78.03) = 1.15, p = 0.507, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.22 to 0.82)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(84.62) = 1.82, p = 0.144, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-0.08 to 1.77)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(79.10) = 2.57, p = 0.024, Cohen d = -0.61, 95% CI (0.22 to 1.75)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(88.28) = 2.97, p = 0.008, Cohen d = -0.69, 95% CI (0.36 to 1.83)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(72.45) = -1.88, p = 0.127, Cohen d = 0.45, 95% CI (-3.65 to 0.10)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(77.61) = 0.51, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.91 to 1.53)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(76.64) = 0.51, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.09 to 1.82)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(76.66) = 1.64, p = 0.208, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-0.31 to 3.22)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(74.94) = 0.91, p = 0.733, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.47 to 1.26)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(78.14) = 1.59, p = 0.230, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-0.30 to 2.67)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(77.94) = 1.22, p = 0.449, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.65 to 2.73)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(80.71) = 3.21, p = 0.004, Cohen d = -0.75, 95% CI (0.77 to 3.28)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(81.44) = 0.72, p = 0.946, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-0.51 to 1.10)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(79.32) = 1.33, p = 0.373, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.28 to 1.39)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(74.67) = 1.41, p = 0.328, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.22 to 1.29)

els

1st vs 2st

t(74.04) = 1.55, p = 0.251, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-0.29 to 2.33)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(73.90) = -2.70, p = 0.017, Cohen d = 0.65, 95% CI (-4.95 to -0.75)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(74.99) = 1.33, p = 0.373, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.39 to 1.96)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(75.82) = 0.51, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.70 to 1.18)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(74.53) = 1.03, p = 0.615, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.94 to 2.96)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(98.97) = 0.69, p = 0.990, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-0.35 to 0.72)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(84.38) = -0.36, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-1.22 to 0.85)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(79.21) = 0.91, p = 0.728, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.61 to 1.65)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(80.06) = 0.38, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-1.52 to 2.23)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(75.05) = -0.01, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-0.97 to 0.96)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(87.91) = 1.85, p = 0.136, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (-0.05 to 1.48)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(78.29) = -0.94, p = 0.705, Cohen d = 0.22, 95% CI (-1.18 to 0.43)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(77.24) = -2.69, p = 0.017, Cohen d = 0.64, 95% CI (-2.07 to -0.31)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(76.93) = -1.59, p = 0.232, Cohen d = 0.38, 95% CI (-1.65 to 0.18)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(78.00) = -1.97, p = 0.106, Cohen d = 0.47, 95% CI (-1.87 to 0.01)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(74.52) = -2.36, p = 0.042, Cohen d = 0.56, 95% CI (-5.00 to -0.42)

Within control group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(102.73) = 0.36, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-0.34 to 0.49)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(91.78) = -0.90, p = 0.740, Cohen d = 0.20, 95% CI (-1.34 to 0.50)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(78.12) = 1.50, p = 0.277, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-0.32 to 2.26)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(77.99) = -1.37, p = 0.347, Cohen d = 0.32, 95% CI (-0.86 to 0.16)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(84.56) = 0.13, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-0.85 to 0.97)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(79.06) = 0.98, p = 0.655, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.38 to 1.13)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(88.21) = -0.81, p = 0.846, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-1.02 to 0.43)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(72.43) = -0.66, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.16, 95% CI (-2.46 to 1.24)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(77.58) = -0.84, p = 0.804, Cohen d = 0.20, 95% CI (-1.70 to 0.69)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(76.60) = -0.69, p = 0.986, Cohen d = 0.16, 95% CI (-1.93 to 0.94)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(76.63) = 0.88, p = 0.759, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.97 to 2.51)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(74.91) = 0.67, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.57 to 1.14)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(78.10) = 0.74, p = 0.928, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-0.92 to 2.00)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(77.91) = 1.05, p = 0.592, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.79 to 2.55)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(80.67) = 0.60, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-0.86 to 1.61)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(81.39) = -1.52, p = 0.263, Cohen d = 0.35, 95% CI (-1.40 to 0.19)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(79.28) = 0.97, p = 0.673, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.42 to 1.22)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(74.65) = 1.40, p = 0.333, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-0.22 to 1.27)

els

1st vs 2st

t(74.01) = 1.42, p = 0.319, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.37 to 2.21)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(73.88) = 0.58, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-1.47 to 2.68)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(74.96) = 0.35, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-0.96 to 1.36)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(75.79) = 0.54, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.68 to 1.18)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(74.50) = 0.46, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-1.48 to 2.36)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(98.86) = 0.64, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-0.36 to 0.70)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(84.32) = 0.85, p = 0.790, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.58 to 1.46)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(79.17) = 1.05, p = 0.590, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.53 to 1.71)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(80.01) = 1.10, p = 0.552, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.83 to 2.87)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(75.03) = 1.45, p = 0.301, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.26 to 1.65)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(87.84) = -0.37, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-0.90 to 0.61)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(78.25) = -0.38, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-0.94 to 0.64)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(77.20) = -0.25, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-0.97 to 0.76)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(76.90) = -0.53, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-1.14 to 0.66)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(77.96) = 0.65, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-0.62 to 1.23)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(74.49) = -0.11, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-2.38 to 2.13)

Plot

Clinical significance